Coupling Coordination Analysis of Regional IEE System: A Data-Driven Multimodel Decision Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading the manuscript “Coupling Coordination Analysis of Regional IEE System: A Data-driven Multimodel Decision Approach”, I highlight next remarks:
· The length of the Abstract cannot exceed a maximum of 200 words.
· Literature review exhibited at section 1 mostly emphasizes the dearth of studies comprising all the three aspects: economy, innovation and ecology, but sound arguments that withstand the necessity of the proposed study were not disclosed. Why do other aspects were disregarded? For instance, economy-innovation-education; economy-ecology-health, ecology-innovation-climate change, etc.
· Practical implications of the study (lines 132-139) seem overly general rather than specific contributions as required.
· An overview of the tiered methodology posited that enables replicability is needed. Each defined methodological stage should be properly connected to techniques, methods and so on. Figure 1 may not replace this overall picture necessary. Some features were associated to the three aspects in the step “Data collection” without any rationale behind.
· Most of the subsection 2.2. and more particularly, Table 1 are part of results instead of methodology and therefore, it should be located in a proper section of the article.
· Bases to build the framework displayed in Table 1 are extremely weak and thus, the system can consider as arbitrary. Rationale to determine criteria and indicators of the system is required. Meaning of the concept “direction” included in Table 1 is unknown.
· Although mathematical expressions of weights were presented, it is unclear how weights were assessed. Please identify sources used to obtain weighting factors. Grounds to set the four stages of coupling degree in 2.4.1. and types of Figure 2 were not revealed either. Contribution of models covered in 2.4.1. to 2.4.3. to the novel framework are very uncertain, beyond the mere statistical values.
· Reasons to limit the study to the period 2014-2020 and Anhui province were not given. The variables represented in Table 4 were not defined and hence, it is unknown how charts were drawn.
· Bases to support suggestions in 3.3. should be strengthened. Effects of such proposals in metrics should be for instance outlined.
· Theoretical and practical contributions of the study in the field were not found. Relevance of the study must be stressed.
· Miscellaneous comments:
o With the purpose to preserve the editorial line of the journal, further contributions published on Processes should be deemed. None was found. English use should be enhanced.
o The organization/structure of the document is inappropriate. It does not follow guidelines of the journal.
o Figure 6 must be shown immediately after being referred in the text.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and for your positive and constructive comments about our paper. We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting work. Congratulations to the authors.
1) The literature review is very valuable. But I kindly suggest the authors incorporate references from other continents/countries to increase the scope of the work.
2) Table 2, at first, I did not understand it very well (T C D). I had to go back to the methodology to remember. I suggest incorporating notes that can clarify the table and can be understood by itself.
Other comments
3) This comment is not something that authors have to do and is only a suggestion. About figure 5. Is there a way to improve its visualisation? For example, if all images are vertical or vertical, which could improve the understanding of these images.
4) Finally, this is a general comment like in comment 3. Do you consider it relevant to link this work to the UN Sustainable Development Goals? Perhaps these goals could be part of the motivation for this work. That is, incorporating arguments from outside the academy.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and for your positive and constructive comments about our paper. We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading the revised manuscript “Coupling Coordination Analysis of Regional IEE System: A Data-driven Multimodel Decision Approach”, I highlight next remarks:
· Section 2 should depict the methodology proposed, whilst next section shows results of applying prior methodological stages. Hence, some information encompassed in Section 2, i.e., Table 1 should be part of Section 3. Actually, the extension of Section 2 is excessive.
· Sound rationale to determine criteria and indicators of the system is again required. The concept “direction” is missing in lines 233-237 where apparently it was described.
· It is unknown how weighting factors of Table 2 were obtained.
· It is highly controversial if the consideration of such a short period of time (2014-2020) is representative for the research. Scarcity of data does not justify it.
· Section 3.3. should be removed because the lack of sound bases. Statistics provided are not enough to support such daring suggestions whose effects in terms of metrics´ progress were not revealed either.
· Theoretical and practical contributions of the study in the field were not found. Main conclusions must be stressed.
· Miscellaneous comments:
o It was unnecessary to divide Section 1 into three subsections.
o The combination of methodological aspects and results hinders reader´s understanding and the potential use of the research by other scholars.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and your affirmation of the revision of our papers in round 1.We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments in round 2 and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
· It is unknown how weighting factors of Table 2 were obtained from the equations [1] to [4] that are general statistical expressions. The point is what data nurtured the given equations and how data represents the selected metrics.
All data sources must be properly cited and referred.
· Lines 581 to 610 are confusing since they mostly summarize results rather than providing main conclusions from the research. Some countermeasures were also suggested without sound grounds. Furthermore, theoretical and practical contributions of the study in the field were not revealed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback of the revision of our papers in round 2.We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. When we carefully read some of your suggestions this time, we found that we did not handle some details well. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise again. In the process of revising this article, we have learned a lot from you. This is a very rare opportunity. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments in round 3 and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
· The article must further develop in 3.2.2. how weighting factors of Table 2 were obtained from the equations [1] to [4], instead a mere presentation of the table. All data sources must be properly cited and referred according to the format set by the journal, e.g., sources listed in 422-425.
· Main conclusions must be presented in the last section rather than a summary of the study. Since the Sustainable Development Goals were not considered at all when building the framework, the statement in lines 626-628 is unbased an therefore, it must be removed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback of the revision of our papers in round 3.We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. When we carefully read some of your suggestions this time, we found that we did not handle some details well. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise again. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory. Our responses to your specific comments in round 4 and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 5
Reviewer 1 Report
· All data sources must be properly cited and referred according to the format set by the journal, e.g., sources listed in 421-424.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and positive and constructive comments on our paper in round 5. Your suggestions have helped us significantly improve the quality of this article. This study experience has also provided me with a lot of valuable experience for my future research work. We hope you will be satisfied with the revision. Our responses to your specific comments and descriptions of the resultant changes in our revision are as follows.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 6
Reviewer 1 Report
..
